Watching ENT despite the continuity flaws.

No Star Trek series has ever been made to fit into the 'continuity' or the 'canon'. They're made to entertain fans. 99% of the viewing audience doesn't notice stuff like warp factors or what directions anomalies face on the full moon of a certain Klingon holiday.

STID does show the Enterprise getting from the Klingon border to Earth in mere seconds with continuous dialogue and action throughout, so it's much harder to justify there. But mistakes happen. They don't "break" the canon because canons have the built-in ability to absorb and repair damage.

Click to expand...

You're assuming a mistake has been made, when I suggest they're deliberately using the faster examples I've cited as their baseline - moving the goal posts back to where they were, so to speak. IMHO everything apart from Voyager fits nicely into this framework - no need to ignore lines like "rim of the galaxy" and "centre of the galaxy"

I watched the series despite its plethora of issues because I love Star Trek. Am I the only one that tolerated captain Archer and his shipmates? Am I the only one who feels that Star Trek Enterprise was just another chance for Hollywood to revamp the series with new special effects and makeup without stressing whether the plot would correlate with the previous series.

Click to expand...

Having watched all Trek series, most of them in their original runs, and now courtesy of Netflix re-watching, I can't say that "Enterprise" suffered any more or any less than the other Trek shows with regards to internal continuity.

Certainly, if omission of previous encounters within the series is a measure of continuity flaws, then TOS has as much as any others. At one point, in Season 3 (I think?) they almost mention the Horta, but in such a ham-handed way, it didn't feel like they were remembering the same adventure.

You're assuming a mistake has been made, when I suggest they're deliberately using the faster examples I've cited as their baseline - moving the goal posts back to where they were, so to speak.

Click to expand...

No, TOS never treated the trip from Earth to Vulcan, or the Klingon border, as nigh-instantaneous. TOS was about a starship exploring deep space, far from its home port and never returning there. The modern series' effortless commutes from Earth to everywhere else are a complete abandonment of the original intent of Trek. It's not much of a frontier if you get there faster than you can walk to the corner store.

And as I said, we know for a fact that the filmmakers of ST '09 structured the trip to Vulcan to imply it took longer than shown; Abrams wanted it to flow smoothly for the sake of pacing, but subtly acknowledged the underlying reality that it would realistically have to take more than a few moments. McCoy's change of clothing and Kirk's time spent sedated suggest that a few hours at least have elapsed even though the editing implies a quicker pace. This was entirely intentional, as we know for certain from statements made by the filmmakers. So STID's failure to acknowledge the same passage of time in a trip from the Klingon border to Earth contradicts the intentions of the previous film. And thus, yes, I think I can validly call it a mistake, an oversight on the filmmakers' part -- or, if it was an intentional oversight, still a bad and unnecessary idea.

IMHO everything apart from Voyager fits nicely into this framework - no need to ignore lines like "rim of the galaxy" and "centre of the galaxy"

Click to expand...

And I've already proven that that's not true, that VGR is merely following the precedent established in TNG and DS9. I cited DS9's "Battle Lines" as establishing specific travel time, but I forgot that the precedent was actually set far earlier in TNG's "The Price." The Barzan wormhole was said to span 70,000 light years (the same distance as the Bajoran wormhole and nearly the same as Voyager's journey), and Picard said that the travel time at normal warp would be "eighty years or so." There's also "Q Who," in which the ship was thrown 7,000 light-years across space and Data said it would take two years, seven months to reach the nearest starbase. (Not to return to their original position, though, so perhaps that nearest starbase is substantially closer than where they started from.) So it's been consistent throughout TNG, DS9, and VGR that 24th-century warp drive would take years to span thousands of light-years. The specific cited travel times are inconsistent, but all within an order of magnitude of 1000 times the speed of light.

Indeed, the whole concept of DS9 goes out the window if you can get from Earth to Vulcan (canonically 16 light-years) in a couple of minutes, or to the center of the galaxy (c. 27,000 light-years) in less than an hour. At the former speed, Dominion space would be only a few days away, and at the latter it would be only a couple of hours away. In either case, the wormhole would have no value or strategic importance. Obviously the entire series of DS9 depends on that not being the case, on inter-quadrant travel taking decades via conventional warp drive. As do TNG episodes like "Where No One Has Gone Before," "Q Who," "The Price," "The Nth Degree," and "Descent."

So you're absolutely wrong to say that VGR is the only series based on this premise. The same limit on warp velocities applies throughout TNG, DS9, VGR, and obviously ENT where the ships were slower. That's the vast majority of the entire Trek franchise -- 628 episodes/films out of a total 738 to date (counting "The Cage" and both parts of "The Menagerie" separately). That's 85% of canon.

When the whole point of the story is that they're leaving the galaxy or travelling to it's centre, it seems rather silly to pretend they didn't know where they really were.

Click to expand...

As stated, the galactic center is 27,000 +/- 1000 light-years from Earth. The thin disk of the galaxy has no real definable edge, of course, but it's estimated to be roughly 3300 ly thick, meaning the nearest face would be about 1600 ly away. Although it's irregular enough that there's no way to define that exactly. Of course the whole idea of an "energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy" is complete nonsense.

But that was the problem. ENT, stylistically, structurally, and writing-wise, really wasn't all that different from Voyager which came before it.

Click to expand...

I think whether or not Ent was "stylistically, structurally, and writing-wise", too similar to Voy and TNG is debatable, but even if it is true, just because the shows are set in different centuries in the Trek-verse, it does not necessarily follow that the shows must be structured, written, and stylized in different ways. The differences between the time periods in which the shows are set can be emphisized while using similar writing techniques.

This is assuming of course that I understand your meaning of "stylistically, structurally, and writing-wise". But regardless, I'de love to see some examples from both shows that illustrate what you mean by this.

I don't agree. Granted, UPN put pressure on the producers to make a show that was similar to Voyager, against the producers' wishes. (Berman and Braga wanted the whole first season to be like "First Flight," a Right Stuff-style narrative gradually building toward the start of the mission.) But despite that, I feel that ENT season 1 did a great job conveying a sense that these were pioneers doing everything for the first time, just beginning to feel their way as deep-space explorers and figure it out as they went. The VGR crew were out of their depth because they were in new territory, but they were seasoned veterans at space exploration in general, so it didn't capture that pioneer flavor quite as well.

Also, the astropolitical situation was relatively reversed. Even though Voyager was on its own, it was generally more advanced than the cultures around it, aside from a few isolated exceptions. It was traveling through a lawless region of the galaxy where its technology was coveted (at least in the early seasons). It was more a traditional American/European "frontier narrative" formula where the peoples on the frontier are backward or savage compared to the protagonists expanding into it. (The Borg were certainly advanced, but they were basically space zombies rather than a civilization per se, so they fit into the traditional "frontier savage" trope.)

But NX-01 was a vessel of a nascent starfaring people expanding into a space already dominated by more advanced and powerful states, and having to deal with the realpolitik that it faced there. It was a more modern, post-colonial approach to the frontier narrative, giving more agency to the nations that already occupied the so-called "frontier." And thus it was an interesting deconstruction of Star Trek's longstanding human-centrism and implicit America-centrism.

Click to expand...

Huh. I guess you and I watched two completely different shows, because I got none of that. I was turned off of ENT for the same reason I was turned off of VOY: Because it was the same boring formula of mainly human ships' crew visiting alien/planet of the week that I could care less about. And when it wasn't doing that, it was giving gratuitous displays of decon-gel soft porn, masseuses, and frat-boy mentalities for the nascent spacefaring people of which you speak. And the real nascent spacefaring people, the Boomers (of which Travis was one, and obcenely underutilized), was featured for perhaps one or two episodes. Not to mention that the technology wasn't really all that different from the 23rd or 24th century. Akira-style ship? Check. Shuttlecraft? Check. Starfleet? Check. Transporters? Check. Phasers (aka phase pistols)? Check. Communicators? Check. TNG-style rank pins? Check. Klingons? Check. Token black guy? Asian? Brit? One or two alien crewmembers? All check.

I agree with many of those complaints, though, again, the similarity to the preceding series was demanded by the network and not what the creators wanted. But despite the series' flaws and the unfortunate limitations it was saddled with, it still has some intriguing merits. The second season is pretty directionless, but the first season has an arc and attitude I rather enjoy.

I LOVED Enterprise and was sad it ended when and how it did. So far as "continuity errors," I hate to break it to other fans, but no Star Trek show, including TOS, was 100% perfect at avoiding such errors. I feel Enterprise did a good job being faithful to canon while still being it's own show all things considered.

but no Star Trek show, including TOS, was 100% perfect at avoiding such errors.

Click to expand...

None were 100% perfect, it is true - they all had some cringeworthy moments. But only the final episode of Enterprise and the episode of Voyager known as "Threshold" ever made me think truly dark thoughts about those responsible for them.

You're assuming a mistake has been made, when I suggest they're deliberately using the faster examples I've cited as their baseline - moving the goal posts back to where they were, so to speak.

Click to expand...

No, TOS never treated the trip from Earth to Vulcan, or the Klingon border, as nigh-instantaneous. TOS was about a starship exploring deep space, far from its home port and never returning there. The modern series' effortless commutes from Earth to everywhere else are a complete abandonment of the original intent of Trek. It's not much of a frontier if you get there faster than you can walk to the corner store.

And as I said, we know for a fact that the filmmakers of ST '09 structured the trip to Vulcan to imply it took longer than shown; Abrams wanted it to flow smoothly for the sake of pacing, but subtly acknowledged the underlying reality that it would realistically have to take more than a few moments. McCoy's change of clothing and Kirk's time spent sedated suggest that a few hours at least have elapsed even though the editing implies a quicker pace. This was entirely intentional, as we know for certain from statements made by the filmmakers. So STID's failure to acknowledge the same passage of time in a trip from the Klingon border to Earth contradicts the intentions of the previous film. And thus, yes, I think I can validly call it a mistake, an oversight on the filmmakers' part -- or, if it was an intentional oversight, still a bad and unnecessary idea.

IMHO everything apart from Voyager fits nicely into this framework - no need to ignore lines like "rim of the galaxy" and "centre of the galaxy"

Click to expand...

And I've already proven that that's not true, that VGR is merely following the precedent established in TNG and DS9. I cited DS9's "Battle Lines" as establishing specific travel time, but I forgot that the precedent was actually set far earlier in TNG's "The Price." The Barzan wormhole was said to span 70,000 light years (the same distance as the Bajoran wormhole and nearly the same as Voyager's journey), and Picard said that the travel time at normal warp would be "eighty years or so." There's also "Q Who," in which the ship was thrown 7,000 light-years across space and Data said it would take two years, seven months to reach the nearest starbase. (Not to return to their original position, though, so perhaps that nearest starbase is substantially closer than where they started from.) So it's been consistent throughout TNG, DS9, and VGR that 24th-century warp drive would take years to span thousands of light-years. The specific cited travel times are inconsistent, but all within an order of magnitude of 1000 times the speed of light.

Indeed, the whole concept of DS9 goes out the window if you can get from Earth to Vulcan (canonically 16 light-years) in a couple of minutes, or to the center of the galaxy (c. 27,000 light-years) in less than an hour. At the former speed, Dominion space would be only a few days away, and at the latter it would be only a couple of hours away. In either case, the wormhole would have no value or strategic importance. Obviously the entire series of DS9 depends on that not being the case, on inter-quadrant travel taking decades via conventional warp drive. As do TNG episodes like "Where No One Has Gone Before," "Q Who," "The Price," "The Nth Degree," and "Descent."

So you're absolutely wrong to say that VGR is the only series based on this premise. The same limit on warp velocities applies throughout TNG, DS9, VGR, and obviously ENT where the ships were slower. That's the vast majority of the entire Trek franchise -- 628 episodes/films out of a total 738 to date (counting "The Cage" and both parts of "The Menagerie" separately). That's 85% of canon.

When the whole point of the story is that they're leaving the galaxy or travelling to it's centre, it seems rather silly to pretend they didn't know where they really were.

Click to expand...

As stated, the galactic center is 27,000 +/- 1000 light-years from Earth. The thin disk of the galaxy has no real definable edge, of course, but it's estimated to be roughly 3300 ly thick, meaning the nearest face would be about 1600 ly away. Although it's irregular enough that there's no way to define that exactly. Of course the whole idea of an "energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy" is complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

And of course TMP gave us a canicol journey time from Earth to Vulcan of 4 days. Or 4 light years per day. Which would put Voyager's journey around the 50 year mark. At those speeds.

But with so many writers over so many years, these kind of details can get lost. Are we more forgiving or continuity errors etc.. when we are being fully entertained, if we aren't being fully entertained do we start to pick apart things more and say that was wrong, and that was wrong etc..

And of course TMP gave us a canicol journey time from Earth to Vulcan of 4 days. Or 4 light years per day. Which would put Voyager's journey around the 50 year mark. At those speeds.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that was for a ship that still had barely tested engines and had taken something of a beating -- plus it had only been minutes earlier that Scotty had had the engines counting down to self-destruct, which probably threw off their calibration somewhat. So they would've had good reason to take it slow. A fully intact ship that needed to race from Earth to Vulcan for an emergency situation could've probably gone a great deal faster.

^Mistakes happen. As I know from writing novels, a work can be scanned for errors dozens of times by many pairs of eyes, but there will almost always be a few mistakes that slip through the cracks nonetheless. There are just so many thousands of details to pay attention to that even intense scrutiny will miss a few.

I've never been bothered too much about the apparent speed and distance differences. I'm watching ENT through again though and the only continuity that bothered me was in Regeneration with the Borg. It was a great episode as far as directing, effects, action, and score. However, the whole time watching it I couldn't get over how big of a role the Borg play in the later series when there should have been a record of them in Starfleet. Despite the fact that they were never named in the episode, it still detracted from my enjoyment of it because they were cyborgs that took over humans. Surely a search by Picard through Starfleet records would have brought up some information, assuming Archer files mission records.

For the most part I dislike the writing in ENT more than any canon issues though. I loved the cast and their acting, for the most part, and visually it was impressive. I also liked the prequel concept, but I think the writing (as in bad dialogue or plot holes) is worse than any canon issues. I'm still working my way through season 3 and don't remember most of season 4, so we'll see if my opinion changes.

Regeneration was surprisingly, a good episode. I remember being here, all the way back, when it was announced, and the reaction here was of utter vitriol and hatred from many fans.

The only problem i had with it, is that it makes Picard look incompetent and unthorough. Surely he would have conducted a scan for any debris, from the ship which he destroyed? Other than that, one of ENT's better episodes.